And on each of those occasions, I felt we had sunk to the absolute bottom of the frivolous pit, only to underestimate the capacity of class action lawyers to create new cases.
The latest one to draw my ire involves, of all things, chewing gum -- specifically Wrigley’s Eclipse chewing gum, which allegedly labeled or advertised its product to possess “germ killing” properties because it contained Magnolia Bark Extract.
Magnolia Bark Extract is a fluid alcohol from a Magnolia plant and has been utilized in traditional Chinese medicine for years to treat everything from allergies to anxieties to bad breath.
The class action lawyers say Wrigley misled consumers with the “germ killing” claim. Meanwhile Wrigley denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to buy off the lawyers because they know any effort to establish innocence during a trial will cost far more than the $6 million proposed settlement.
We consumers will never know if the gum gunned down any germs or not; we only know that eligible consumers can collect “up to $10” if they go to the trouble to fill out and file the appropriate claims and then wait months for their ship to come in. Conversely, the eligible lawyers will take mega-bucks to the bank.
As best I can tell, you don’t even have to provide proof that you ever bought the stuff, and that’s convenient since I doubt anyone ever saved a gum wrapper on the contingency that it might wind up as “Exhibit A” in a lawsuit.
The concept of class action suits, in and of itself, is a valid one. Consumers should have a method of collective redress against corporations that mislead or shortchange them, but like many good things, this one is too often abused.
Maybe if the lawyers could only collect “up to $10,” plus their actual billing hours and expenses, they would find other ways to spend their time.
If we are down to chewing gum and $10 awards, every product that claims it can do something for the buyer is a target for a class-action suit. All it takes is for some lawyer to spot a product that makes a claim and determine that the producing company would be better off settling than financing a lawsuit to prove its innocence.
He or she then only needs to recruit a compensated “class representative” to hire his or her firm to take the case and the legal piracy process takes over.
The end result of the gum case will be that Wrigley will have to increase costs to consumers to cover the payout; some people in desperate need of “up to $10” will get it, and the only people benefitting substantially will be the lawyers.
There is a better way to slap the hands of sinning corporations if aggrieved consumers stand to gain only token compensation, as in the gum case. Actually “up to $10” is not the worst case scenario. Some settlements only award “coupons” which can be used to apply to new purchases from the sued company.
One would be hard pressed to find a difference between the Wrigley case and a recent action against Delta Airlines in which the airline failed to tell travelers that some flights are operated by feeder airlines under the “Delta Connection” name.
In that case, the U.S. Transportation Department imposed a $40,000 fine on Delta and ordered the airline to fix the problem – a quick and simple process that should be followed in class-action claims where only lawyers stand to receive any appreciable compensation.
Maybe a class action suit against class action lawyers who cleverly pretend to serve the consumer is in order.
PLEASE NOTE MY E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED TO lemorganti@hughes.net